It was with a slightly raised eyebrow that I read the definition of privacy as a human right. As we stumble blindly forward into a world of artificial intelligence and robotics all raising questions of rights and responsibilities of (and to) electronic beings, perhaps, we should also re-examine what rights a human should have. For those who have missed the discussion here, there is an ongoing debate in Europe as to the legal and “human” rights that we should extend to the silicon-based forms that we seem to be creating (to call them life forms seems to step into a quagmire we still are unable to admit exists, let alone being a venue for discussion). It seems that one can not turn around without seeing a slogan or sign that Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives matter or that any number of people matter and yet this seems mere lip service. How willing we are to turn a blind eye to the idea that schoolchildren matter and perhaps turning schools into shooting rangers might not be the best way to express that value. We seem to be working to keep drugs out of our country yet can’t seem to react to the fact that our doctors and drug companies are creating prescription addicts to enhance their bottom line.
The only rights we seem to be respecting are, the governments right to act in whatever way it wishes, the right for large businesses to act in whatever way they deem appropriate to make the largest profit with the least responsibility to anyone other than themselves or their shareholders. We allow credit card purchases to be made online, even allow our personal information to be held online but we couldn’t allow voting to occur via computer even though we can not verify the sanctity of those records.
We seem to be falling over ourselves to trample over the cloth of purple that we claim to esteem, all but blind to our hubris as we are lulled in another warm bath.

If I remember correctly, in the closing lines of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. Now, while the quote goes on, I find it interesting this idea of somethings self-evidence; the idea that something is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. It seems self-evident that people have rights though we may argue as to the breadth and depth of those rights and that machines, as non-human, non-feeling entities do not. This notion was challenged when I saw an article in the BBC about the appearance of a woman robot in Riyadh Saudi Arabia at the Future Investment Initiative conference. Sophia, as she is known, was given Saudi citizenship but she was allowed to appear without the traditional headscarf and abaya, the cloak that Saudi women are obliged to wear in public. Of course, social media pundits leaped to their keyboards noting that not only had this electronic “woman” not only been granted citizenship but had rights that Saudi women only dream of. Here was a woman speaking alone on a stage where under the Saudi Guardianship system every woman must be accompanied by a male companion who has authority to act on her behalf. It seems as if Saudi Arabia had become the Manor Farm for the day where all women were equal except that those women who were silicon-based were more equal than those of a mere carbon base.
While it may seem laughable now, it is not impossible to imagine that we could create a world in which computers would have more rights than some or maybe even all people. We seem to delight in ways that we can segregate and remove ourselves from those who we deem somehow different or less than us but now we seem to have taken that talent to a whole new level. We could create machines to look down on us- maybe outsource our racism so that we would be free to pursue more noble goals? While it may seem absurd, there are some of us who remember when the idea of an actor as president was a punchline and not a reality.

If I remember correctly, in the closing lines of the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson wrote, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”. Now, while the quote goes on, I find it interesting this idea of somethings Self-evidence; the idea that something is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof. It seems self-evident that people have rights though we may argue as to the breadth and depth of those rights and that machines, as non-human, non-feeling entities do not. This notion was challenged when I saw an article in the BBC about the appearance of a woman robot in Riyadh Saudi Arabia at the Future Investment Initiative conference. Sophia, as she is known, was given Saudi citizenship but she was allowed to appear without the traditional headscarf and abaya, the cloak that Saudi women are obliged to wear in public. Of course, social media pundits leapt to their keyboards noting that not only had this electronic “woman” not only been granted citizenship but had rights that Saudi women only dream of. Here was a woman speaking alone on a stage where under the Saudi Guardianship system every woman must be accompanied by a male companion who has authority to act on her behalf. It seems as if Saudi Arabia had become the Manor Farm for the day where all women were equal except that those women who were silicon-based were more equal than those of a mere carbon base.
While it may seem laughable now, it is not impossible to imagine that we could create a world in which computers would have more rights than some or maybe even all people. We seem to delight in ways that we can segregate and remove ourselves from those who we deem somehow different or less than us but now we seem to have taken that talent to a whole new level. We could create machines to look down on us- maybe outsource our racism so that we would be free to pursue more noble goals? While it may seem absurd, there are some of us who remember when the idea of an actor as president was a punchline and not a reality.